From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X7QND-0001Zp-Gh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X7QNC-0004GC-IF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id g18so1043243oah.20 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.97.230 with SMTP id ed6mr21015755oeb.81.1405521593068; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:39:53 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AtYkZzEFS3wzWXQniGyrGwSMx_c Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1X7QNC-0004GC-IF Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for geutxos message X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 -0000 --089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On the specific issue I raised, the BIP only says "Querying multiple > nodes and combining their answers can be a partial solution to this" > which is not very helpful advice. That's a partial answer to my > question #2 with zero response for question #3. > I'm sorry you think it's unhelpful. It is nonetheless the best that can be done within the constraints of the current Bitcoin protocol. > This sort of thing really needs a warning label like "use only if you > don't have a trusted solution" and discussion of that choice is > completely absent (question #1). > It's absent for the same reason it's absent for all the other protocol BIPs: the ability to use a trusted third party is always present and a possible answer for any problem in Bitcoin. So I figured it didn't need stating. How about adding the following sentence: "If the above constraints are insufficient for your use case, you can alternatively query a block explorer or other trusted third party to obtain the same information". Would that make the BIP clearer? --089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On the specific issue I raised, the BIP only say= s "Querying multiple
nodes and combining their answers can be a partial solution= to this"
which is not very helpful advice. =C2=A0That's a partial answer t= o my
question #2 with zero response for question #3.

I'm sorry you think it's unhelpful. It is nonetheless the = best that can be done within the constraints of the current Bitcoin protoco= l.
=C2=A0
This sort of thing really n= eeds a warning label like "use only if you
don't have a trusted solution" and discussion of that choice is completely absent (question #1).

It'= ;s absent for the same reason it's absent for all the other protocol BI= Ps: the ability to use a trusted third party is always present and a possib= le answer for any problem in Bitcoin. So I figured it didn't need stati= ng.

How about adding the following sentence:

=
"If the above constraints are insufficient for your use cas= e, you can alternatively query a block explorer or other trusted third part= y to obtain the same information".

Would that make the BIP clearer?
--089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3--